Yes, I agree. At the very least, it sure would be nice to have a read-only source tree available. It's understood that many things will be broken, but without a visible source base that tracks active development, you're not getting any of the benefits of an 'open' development model.
Personally, I don't follow the concept of only releasing a stable source tree as mentioned on the OMPI web site. If I want a stable source tree, I'll download a tar-ball or a tagged version of the tree. Unless you have some compelling reasons that make this different than the rest of 1000's of 'open' projects. If not your release strategy, then perhaps the OMPI folks could at least revisit the issue of having a more transparent development cycle...there's not even a devel or commit mailing list. Looking forward to the release. Philip > > Please adopt a release-early, release-often strategy. > > Could not agree more! > > > > > "Show us the code!" > > > > -scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > > users mailing list > > us...@open-mpi.org > > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > > -- > Gleb. > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
